Adequately_InsaneIt will only go downhill from here
Isn’t it a good thing for pedophiles to have an outlet for their desires that doesn’t involve harming children? Am I not seeing an obvious downside?
klingelstreichIt depends on whether you hold a world view where every person is valuable and needs help and understanding to become their best self or one where there are good and bad people and the baddies need to be punished and locked away so everyone else can live their life in peace.
That’s a ridiculously strict and binary view that reduces this issue to the point of absurdity.
I don’t think any minors are involved with AI generated stuff
involving minors
But if it’s just generated by AI there might be no involvement
It doesn’t matter. We cannot indulge the distribution of media with sex acts depicting minors.
I’m not saying it’s better alternative, I’m saying it might not make sense to talk about it “involving minors”.
All right, if we want to be picky about the wording “incredibly photo realistic depictions of minors.”
No if about it
That's not picky about wording.
While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.
While I agree that stuff like that should not exist at all in no way whatsoever, there is a vast difference between it existing because someone abused a child, recorded that and thus scarred the child for life, or if someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting.
someone made a computer make up pixels in a way that is disgusting
I like your analogy. The Saw movies were well-received (at first), even though most people would abhor hurting others in this way.
“I made up pixels in a way that depicts your 7 year old son [insert gross depiction of a sex act with me]. I don’t see the problem.”
That's a rather useless contribution to the discussion. The initial argument was a line of reasoning why artificial csam might be a benefit so people can vent their otherwise harmful behavior without harming actual people. You just flat out responded "it is enabling and doesn't stop distribution". So you just responded with "no, u wrong". Care to tell us you reasons behind your stance?
So did I just say “no u wrong“ or did I say “it is enabling it doesn’t stop distribution“? I am incredibly confused by your comment.
“it is enabling it doesn’t stop distribution“
Norgur’s point is that you didn’t provide any reasoning why that should be the case.
Giving pedophiles access to depictions of children nude/having sex is, at face value, enabling. By definition. They are literally indulging in the media for their own gratification.